OKLAHOMA CITY A push to raise oil and gasproductiontaxes is seeing
legal challenges before it has secured a place on the ballot. Oklahoma
charges a gross production tax, which is levied as a percentage of each
barrel's worth. The default rateis 7 percent, but the rate is 2
percent for the first 36 months, which is intended to be an incentive
period.Restore Oklahoma Now Inc. is pushing to raise that incentive
period by 5 percent and use the new revenue to pay for teacher and
school staff members to get a pay raise. The Oklahoma Supreme Court
heard oral arguments Thursday on two challenges to the petition. One
focused on the gist, a summary attached to the petition that explains
the measure to potential signers. The other challenge accused the
proposal of violating the state's single-subject rule. The Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group, filed a lawsuit
challenging the provision on Jan. . Attorneys argued it was misleading
because it focused on teacher pay raises, which are politically popular,
but downplayed the fact that administrative workers would also get a pay
raise. They also argued that a typo and vague language made it difficult
to determine which wells would be affected and that it could be
construed as an illegally retroactive tax increase. Robert McCampbell,
of GableGotwals, represented the OIPA. Many of his arguments hinged on
the idea that limited information would prevent residents from knowing
what they were signing. Justices said that argument on its face
wouldn't work. The gist inherently has to omit things,"
Justice Patrick Wyrick said. "That's why it's a
gist." As the hearing progressed, thoseissuesmorphed into one
before the bench: Is this document too difficult for potential signers
to understand? Justices noted that if there is any confusion in the
gist, residents could simply turn a few pages and read the whole
initiative. McCampbell said that although the potential signers would
have that ability, many wouldn't take it. "Its going to have
to have at least 124,000 signatures," he said. "Were not going
to have 124,000 voters read this petition word for word." Justice
Noma Gurich said that gists which have a character limit, have to fit
one page and allow enough room for 20 signature lines to fit below it
exist to protect against specific problems. "The gist is to prevent
fraud, corruption and deceit," she said. "Those are
intentional acts." She asked McCampell whether he believed
petitioners were engaging in any of those behaviors. He said he
didn't, but that the text still wasn't clear enough for
residents to make a good decision. Several justices raised concerns that
they had trouble differentiating when the law would take effect because
of ambiguous writing and omissions. Wyrick and Yvonne Kauger said it
would be in the petitioners' and voters' best interest for the
language to be clear. Ryan Ray, of Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter
Barnett& Ray, argued on behalf of the petitioners. His argument
hinged on the idea that regardless of clarity issues or any errors, the
court was tasked with deciding whether the law at hand would violate the
constitution. "Is it clearly and manifestly unconstitutional?"
he said. "If it is not, it is to be submitted." He said there
wouldn't be time to get the issue on the November ballot if the
organization had to restart the process. He also said that if the
organization did so, there would likely be another complaint. The OIPA
filed another lawsuit the same day that argued the measure would violate
the single-subject rule. Glenn Coffee of Glenn Coffee& Associates
represented the organization. He compared the measure to the 2016 state
question that would have raised sales taxesto pay for a teacher pay
raise. He said that he wanted to vote for a salary increase but
couldn't because of his stance on taxes. "The only option I
had was an all-or-nothing proposal," he said. "Here, Im tasked
with the same impossible choice. I have to agree to bind future
generations to this base level of funding." He said the measures
within the initiative should be spread into several pieces. Wyrick said
the Oklahoma Constitution requires all tax increases to be passed with
an explanation of how that money will be spent. Ray also represented the
organizers during this lawsuit. He said the court would go against
decades of precedence to vote down the petition for that reason.
"This is an interlocking package," he said. "All of the
parts are dependent on one another."